“I’ve asked the pros – iOS and Mac developers, photographers, audio engineers, animators and more – what they want from the promise of a modular Mac for pros, along with the display Apple also announced it’s working on,” Jordan Kahn reports for 9to5Mac.

“If you ask the pros, most seem to agree they’d be happy if Apple just returned to the old ‘cheese-grater’ tower that long served them well before the current design introduced in 2013, although with a smaller and more modern implementation,” Kahn reports. “Most are hoping for standard slots for upgradable components that aren’t just limited to few Apple-approved options.”

“Pros don’t all want the same things, but it’s quite clear after talking to them that truly upgradeable CPUs and GPUs will be a must,” Kahn reports. “We also heard a few other interesting thoughts and feature requests beyond upgradeable components.”

MacDailyNews Take: Apple should include an apology from Tim Cook and every upper level manager responsible for the last 4+ years of stupefied inaction inside every box.

Back in 2013, when Apple said the new Mac Pro was “stunning,” little did anyone know they were referring to themselves.

Here’s hoping Apple’s properly chastened by their painfully obvious mismanagement of the desktop professional Mac and they do actually deliver a user-extensible Mac Pro instead of another dead-end vanity project. If Apple fails here again, it’ll be the last straw for professionals who need powerful, expandable, configurable Macintosh computers. – MacDailyNews, May 8, 2017

Thank You for supporting MacDailyNews!

47 Comments

Look! No one is talking about the #1 thing that goes along with a “PRO COMPUTER SETUP.”

Mega data storage systems to handle NAS, JBOD, hot swapping drives or whatever a person wants or must do to support safety, security and direct local backup drives.

ZFS is already here and many solutions exist from 3rd parties, but the reality is that Apple should have its own “plug on” box or structure that lets people quickly ad the 10s of Terabytes of data that are easily now possible with 1T SSDs.

The amount of physical space required for 10-20 SSDs is truly tiny compared to the whole Mac Pro case no matter what form it is made in.

Given the trends in malware of all types, it would not be unreasonable for Apple to expand its reach in detecting bad actions to include both hardware and software to actively detect and block advanced forms of sleuthing against Macs from RF to ultrasound to keyboard click sounds to notification on screen of any activation of functions that can export or compromise data.

There is so much Apple can do to help pros and either they do it or they are just niche players. Apple, step up to the plate.

Understand about component expandibity such as drives, cards and Ram. I doubt though that Apple will enable too much processor upgrades. After all if you have a machine that can last ten years because Apple gave ultimate flexibility then the annnual revenue will be minimal. Then we’re back in the same situation where Apple does not put resources into the product since it is not a big earner.
If instead Apple produced a decent body that allowed for expansion and on a yearly basis (or when Intel came out with new chipsets) upgraded the motherboard, the demands for new tech and optimal sales would be realized.

A superfast interconnect between physically discrete boxes is find for storage, but a single box needs to house the CPU, RAM and GPU/PCIe slots, to keep the physical distance between the three as small as possible. Electrons might move very fast, but at the GHz speeds we’re talking about even a few extra inches can cause latency bottlenecks for extremely high-performance ops.

To use a different real-world analogy… there’s a reason high-frequency trading servers are colocated very near a stock exchange’s physical server location: with the lower latency (physical distance in this case), they can process data and execute trading instructions literally microseconds before the systems the general public use can act on info coming from the exchange’s main servers.

“After all if you have a machine that can last ten years because Apple gave ultimate flexibility then the annnual revenue will be minimal.”
I think this is actually a workable idea. Basically, all Apple would do is create just another PC box, just with Apple’s firmware. They could ALL be BTO (they’re not going to sell very many, in the grand scheme of things) and how much you pay is how much you get. If you want to spend $20,000, you can. They can offer AppleCare, but those who want to update their own CPU’s wouldn’t be able to use it.

Yep. Should Apple provide for CPU upgrades, I bet the first year’s sales would beat the trash can. And the second. Then, as people see how well it is working to upgrade CPUs on an awesome expandable Mac, year three would be even bigger, kicking off a huge resurgance for the Mac. But it will take a couple of years to prove that they are back in the game first. Expansion is a good first step. Upgradability will go even further.

Actually, I don’t think there’s a HUGE market for Pro machines. People that require huge amounts of power have moved on because Apple doesn’t, and likely will not be, providing workstation or server class systems anymore. So, this won’t be opening up some huge new market (sales won’t increase year over year because there aren’t that many Pros and consumers just aren’t interested in spending the amount of money this thing is likely to cost), it will just be sustaining those few thousand that just HAVE to use macOS… and will give them somewhere to transition to. It would make sense to me for them to figure out what’s the easiest and lowest cost (over time) to support those that are willing to compromise a bit.

I believe Apple’s goal could VERY well be to do the R&D to figure out what’s the best solution for going as generic as possible (do they allow you to install whatever motherboard you want OR do they design a motherboard and let you add approved cards OR…) and then leave that as “done” for 5 years or more. And, really, if you can replace anything you’d want why would you need to buy a new one every year anyway?

The more I think of this, the more I can see why they’re spending the time to figure out how to do this right the first time so that they can go back to focusing

DoGoneToo, the effect currently for Apple is “annual (Mac Pro) revenue will be (already is) minimal.

My bet is expandable boxes will give the Mac Pro new life, particularly when we know we can run Mac, Linux and Windows on one box and do it simultaneously if we want to do so, which is a terrific advantage for many users.

There are times Mac users must use other software than what is able to run on the Mac OSX platform.

I criticized the Cylinder from announcement here and elsewhere and was berated by the Fanbois that blindly fellate Apple at every opportunity. Tim Cook could announce Dogshit wrapped in Aluminum and some would line up to call it the greatest thing.

Workstation computers need to strictly follow the form follows function meme. That means keep Jony Ive the fuck away from the design. Tell Phil Schiller some of us do not dream of a Mac without ports and we damn sure do not want a Mac we cannot open to maintain, upgrade or repair.

There are two two the niches to be filled:
1- A full power Xeon Beast with state of the art GPU Card and Memory Card capability and internal storage with world class connectivity. This unit should also have the wireless capability on a card- not the motherboard- so it can be upgraded as Wi-Fi and Bluetooth improve. Internal slots so we can upgrade so we can track future generations of wired connectivity.
2- A version of the above with Intel Core i7 Quad Core CPUs for those who do not need the Xeon class but desire the maintainability and expandability. Core i7s are cheaper than Xeons and should allow a more reasonable price.
3- A compact workstation grade unit similar to what HP is now selling (Mac mini sized with a discrete GPU and Xeon or Core series BTO CPUs) that users can open and upgrade drives or memory on.

1. What took them so long to figure out that this was a dead-end machine? The Mac Cube was an equally misguided, overpriced/underpowered dead-end, but it was cancelled in less than a year.

2. Why on earth was it not upgraded with newer or at least cheaper RAM, SSDs, GPUs, and CPUs during the first three years timeframe?

3. Did anyone actually talk to in-house Apple developers and power-users about their opinions of the machine, before, during, or after the machine was introduced? Did anyone talk to 3rd party power-users about what they needed in a Pro machine before, during, or after its introduction?

4. This machine was HEAVILY dependent on the swift development of 3rd party Thunderbolt peripherals. Did anyone do some serious, and I mean SERIOUS talking to those third parties?

“The Mac Cube was an equally misguided, overpriced/underpowered dead-end, but it was cancelled in less than a year.”

Add to that, the Mac Cube was STEVE JOBS’s own design (insofar as telling the engineers to design something around a cube). He love the cube shape, but had no qualms knifing his own baby when evidence and feedback quickly mounted that the design had serious shortcomings.

That the current Apple executives couldn’t do that to the cylinder Mac Pro until earlier this year, almost FOUR YEARS after the Mac Pro was introduced, shows how far they’ve been caught up in their own self-congratulatory BS.

I honestly don’t think Cook & Co. admitted to themselves that the Demi-Trashcan was a mistake until a couple months ago. Two things make me believe that: (1) the unprecedented, emergency press conference (2) the fact that they clearly had no other MacPro solution in development, hence the incredibly long lead time before the next MacPro finally shows up.

I had to install an old cheese grater yesterday. Was amazed how many ports it had on the front and back. I forgot how easy it was to open and swap out drives. What a beautiful design. Plus I was able to install the latest OS on it. Those were the days.

I think Elvis has left the building regarding most of the Pro/Creative community. No server HW, the turning of OS X server into a toy app, the abandonment of timely development of a Mac desktops, the abandonment of the Workstation Market, the Abandonment of the Display market, the fucking over of Final Cut Studio, Logic Studio and Aperture customers, etc. Add in the endless dumbing down of the Mac user interface.
If Windows was not such a security nightmare or LINUX so limited for application software (commercial and indemnified- not freeware) I would have checked out long ago. Pro Mac users and Apple have been in an abusive relationship for years now and the only halfway houses are Windows 10 and LINUX. Apple could sell a hell of a lot more Macs if they spent some damn money on advertising, marketing and keeping the HW and SW up to date.
The dirty little truth is nobody in charge at Cupertino seems to give a damn about the Macintosh or it’s users despite the fact Mac sales built One Infinite Loop as it exists and paid for the development of iOS- not to mention their salaries for most of Apple’s existence.

1) Apple, more than other technology company, help define the field of digital creator. That Apple would virtually abandon it shouts HERESY! Again, we know Apple has busily killing The Golden Goose. That’s damned stupid of Apple. Pouring more shame on them is fine with me!

2) There’s a difference between “Pro” and “Enterprise” users. It can be a bit confusing, but it’s important to think of them separately from a market perspective.

For worse and catastrophically worst, Microsoft owns most of the Enterprise market. In recent years, the COST of that fact has become BLATANT. The blood pools are everywhere.

Nonetheless, Apple has repeatedly attempted inroads into the Enterprise market, most recently including the idealistic investment into continuing Mac OS X Server and the creation of blade server Macs, aka the XServe. But the system never caught on enough to make a significant, if any, profit. It’s common for Apple’s interests to abruptly end if they don’t encounter sufficient resonance within their intended market niche. There are exceptions, such as the Newton (which survived 7/8 generations). Apple is primarily, internally, an R&D company. That’s where all the wonders come from. The rest is just the usual business treadmill.

Perhaps Apple should have sacred cows of persistence in the face of resistance. But getting back to the Mac Pro, that’s no sacred cow. That’s a core staple of the Mac platform. It’s the apex. It’s the best. It’s the highest standard all Mac fanatics strive to have. That Apple lost track of that fact indicates derangement. That Apple is oh-so-sad they screwed up but are willing to SIT ON IT for another year indicates further, deeper derangement. Very sad.

Wrong Again

Friday, May 12, 2017 - 2:56 pm ·

“That’s a core staple of the Mac platform”
Wouldn’t the core staple be considered like the bread? If so, the the iMac would be the core staple, the Mac Pro would be the… I don’t know, Cinnamon Roll? The Mac Pro will never ever ever no matter how you spec it, sell more than the iMac or MacBooks or even the MacBook Pro.

I think Apple II sales built One Infinite Loop… and they aren’t putting any focus into those anymore either. Apple moved beyond the II, they moved beyond OS9, they will move beyond macOS and in twenty years when they’re moving on from iOS to the next thing, the same conversations will occur.

Apple II sales built some of One Infinite Loop, but the Rush on getting the Mac out was because the old line was circling the bowl. Some of that campus dates to the Mac era and the Mac kept the lights on until the iPhone went warp drive.

I am hoping against hope that Apple will consider building what the very vocal high-end users are demanding. I currently have a trashcan Mac at work (for FCP X), and it’s fine for me for now, but if Apple continues to upgrade FCP X with new and more complex features, time will come when this trashcan Mac would have to be replaced by a much faster computer. And I’m hoping that, despite of strong business reasons to simply abandon the money-losing high-end market, someone at Apple decides that the loud noise produced by that high-end pro market can make more damage to the company than producing the device according to their desires, even if it doesn’t generate the profit margins of an iPhone.

The sales numbers that the high-end Mac marked produces are truly negligible (within the context of Apple’s overall revenue). In order to bring in that additional 1% of annual revenue, Apple needs to maintain an entire product line, all the way down to the manufacturing process in Texas. However, there are a few significant positives to keeping the power user segment happy. In addition to lowering the loud (and currently rather negative) noise from that camp, there is the immensely valuable (especially these days, with Trump administraiton) Made-in-USA quality to it, if they decide to use the current facility that’s making trashcan Macs for the new models (even though, in reality, most of the assembly line workers there are immigrants…). Both of these can be used to milk some significant positive publicity and solidify the top position in all market segments.

Having said all of this, I’m not sure if there are enough voices at Apple to argue for this line of action. With Mac Pro segment selling fewer than a million computers per year, the prevailing thinking at Apple is, “Why do we bother, what is the benefit?”. If anything that Apple makes and sells has to be put against the iPhone, or MacBook Air yardstick, then I can’t imagine Apple ever again bothering to put any effort into a new Mac Pro.

Another way to quiet the noise from high end users is to make it so that they move to other vendors. Apple’s been VERY successful with this recently. From a post above,

I believe Apple could come up with a frame that they don’t actually expect to update over 5 years or so that you can plug in your own components. No more needless yearly updates (most pro’s don’t update yearly, they only update every 3-4 years anyway). That allows them the least amount of work that they can make back over the lifetime of the frame. The few remaining Pro’s that don’t like this setup will finally be kicked out… no more noise 🙂

Are you saying Apple doesn’t understand what they announced or that they are fooling everybody with some obscure marketing practices? Apple was scant in details but we have to expect a high end workstation computer, including a Xeon CPU and specifically a very high end graphic card. There goes your old fashioned, inadequate, retro Mac for the ones who always look back.

Most of what you argue against here is related to your own disbelieve in Apple’s recent and public announcements.

They didn’t “announce” anything. And, if you look at the breakdown of that meeting at Daring Fireball, what they said was wide open enough that, if there’s something you want to believe, there’s enough there to tie your hopes and dreams onto.

Most of what I argue is based on the last 15 years. Emergence of iOS and iPhone and a lowering of priority of all things Mac.

“we have to expect a high end workstation computer”
Why? I haven’t found an article where they said they’re going to come out with a high end workstation computer. I did pick up that they’re specifically looking to create something to fill a specific niche that goes beyond the MBP and iMac solutions they have, as well as updating iMacs with Xeons. That doesn’t fill me with confidence in a “Workstation” computer.

Apple get this part right and you will get back your Pro market and more, it’s Price! Stop letting the bean counters run Apple, they distroyed it before and will again if not Stopped. This time Steven won’t be there to pick up the pices. Price, Price, Price! Get it right.

Pros need a commitment from Apple that their products won’t languish without improvement for 4 years or more between refreshes. Regular updates with improvement in capability, cost, and value are necessary if Apple wants to stay in the game. Apple has lost the trust of the old guard.

Moreover, Apple needs to incentivize hardware and software developers to expand the ecosystem. With the cylinder, Apple did the exact opposite, making a bad one-size-fits-all design dependent on Thunderbolt 2 for everything. Sorry, but TB2 is slower than internal PCI, and it costs a lot more. Nobody wants to be forced to buy an octopus mess of cables and breakout boxes to add functionality. We always had that option, and few people choose to have their desks covered with 3rd party docks and kludged remote GPUs.

Finally: Apple needs to offer at least 3 different lines of pro computers. Small tower, large workstation, and rack mounted server. The iMac and Mac Mini are and always will be consumer devices, so don’t waste everyone’s time slapping a “pro” moniker on fundamentally constrained fashion devices with inadequate cooling for sustained computing operations.

When Apple stops treating Pros like gullible fools, then maybe we will trust Apple again. That trust has to be re-earned the hard way.

That could have happened fifteen years ago. Today, the best you could hope for is an expandable tower of some sort. Three different machines??? Absolutely no way! There is not a single person on the board, or in the senior management, who can plausibly convince the others of a justification of the expense of three separate product (and production) lines, all three not being able to have combined sales volume of more than about a million units per year. If Apple were a 50-staff start-up, then yes; but not when a company of some 70,000 staff brings in over $200 Billion (with a B) of revenue per year, with almost $50 B (again, billion) as net profit.

And herein lies Apple’s most convincing argument. Even if they decide to spend all this money and effort and deliver some sort of an expandable Mac Pro, there will still be plenty of those very vocal high-end users who will be loudly unhappy that Apple didn’t offer three different models, that models on offer didn’t support FireWire anymore, or that the company was now so cheap they didn’t even bother to bundle a keyboard and a mouse (which one? Wired? Wireless?, Compact? Full-size? Not everyone agrees!)… If one of the strong reasons for Apple to develop and deliver a new expandable Mac Pro is to placate all the very loud pros who’ve been complaining about the current state of the Mac pro, and the inevitable result ends up being that a good number of those still end up unhappy, then is it really worth bothering to produce something?

Are you saying Apple is no longer interested in serving customers or they are too short of cash to come up with a full lineup of professional level Macs that better meet the hugely diverse needs of the pro communities?

MDN beats the drum constantly that unit sales and market share don’t matter. So if Apple is incapable of making a highly profitable pro-level computer, then that does not speak highly of the company Apple has become.

Also, nowhere above did I insist that Apple attempt to meet the customization needs of every single user. 3 models would do it. Nor did I ever suggest a return to firewire connectors. That ship left a long time ago.

I think it’s time for Apple to stop making excuses why it can’t serve the high performance computing markets it used to in the past. Your last paragraph only underscores the reality that Apple’s lazy one-size-fits-all approach to design has failed. If the company has values besides maximization of its cash hoarding, then it is time to demonstrate that it cares about its Mac users.

“When Apple stops treating Pros like gullible fools, then maybe we will trust Apple again.”
Well, after the pro level failures of the last 15 years or so… anyone still looking for a Pro solution from Apple could actually be considered gullible, yeah? 🙂

I know tech writers who crank out huge graphics-heavy tech documents out of old 17″ MacBook Pros.

I know a lot of scientists and graphics guys running extensive stuff from 2012 and prior Mac Pros.

I know a few photographers and graphics artists who love their 5K iMacs.

I know a lot of coders who use any MacBook Pro they can get their hands on.

But I haven’t met anyone who is proud to recommend OS X Server anymore.

The only people with Mac minis that I know use them as media hubs.

I haven’t met anyone who uses a trashcan Mac Pro anymore, all those video and audio pros all moved to Windows.

Absolutely none of the engineers I work with use a Mac anymore, all their CAD and modeling and simulation and lab data acquisition is entirely Windows based.

I have have met a grand total of three managers and executives in my life who have tried to use iPads and actually have decided to stick with them for their work. All the rest gave up and moved back to laptops, Mac or Windows.

A significant majority of the Mac laptops you see in the wild seem to be facebook users in coffee shops. Not professionals.

YMMV, but as bad as Apple is losing touch with their latest 4 years of consumer grade hardware, there are still some old timers clinging to their old repairable/upgradeable Macs.

I doubt HP, Dell, Boxx and other companies producing high end computers are charities. But producing hardware and software for the high end market is a business for those who really understand and care what they are doing.

So is Apple too lazy, ignorant or arrogant to produce money on this market segment? Well, they almost gave up. Now they seem to understand they need to go back and do it right. I guess something in their minds ticked. But we will have to wait a year or more just to discover how “agile” Apple got to understand what they are missing.

The thing is Apple has turn itself into the big corporation they adversed since the beginning they are mostly fighting with themselves this time. With their own limits, with their own practices and methods.

I think there is a chance for Apple but its up to their will to ignore the brand and focus on the product and the user need

There is no way anyone can compare DELL or HP, and Apple. The commodity PC makers operate on razor-thin margins, which are only, well, marginally higher on the high-end computers. HP had revenue of $45B, and net profit on that was barely $2B. In perspective: Apple’s profit is close to 25% of gross revenue; HP’s is around 4%.

It is impossible for Apple to sell 30 million Mac Pros at thin profit margin, in order to generate the amount of profit that would justify the spending on R&D and support. Let us not forget, Apple’s support call centres for the US market are, surprise — actually in the US (and not in Manilla or Bangalore).

Apple is clearly focusing on the user need: hence the hundreds of millions of iPhones sold to the demanding users. Brand loyalty remains more powerful than any competitor’s, as does customer satisfaction.

I think the main mistake for all of us who want a new Mac Pro is that we are mostly stuck in the late 90s or early 2000s, where Apple’s dominant (and practically only) product was the Mac. Well, it hasn’t been in a long time, and it will never regain that position. Steve already said that: trucks and cars. Apple has moved way from Ford 150 towards Tesla S.

“we are mostly stuck in the late 90s or early 2000s,”
Yeah, that’s why folks have to have realistic expectations. Apple promised to do “something”, but when talking about this promise, they spent a LOT of time talking about how a lot of Pros are fine with the iMac and MBP, and how few of them are using MacPros. They have a VERY specific higher end user they’re thinking about. They are NOT trying to win the segment, they want to please the more reasonable of them. Prepare for disappointment.

Yes, I can compare all those brands right now, as long as we are talking about the same products, the same market and the same needs.

If Apple can’t make money producing high end software and hardware then they should do what many here also suggested and license professional machines for OS X to HP and Dell. Lets not get lost in general numbers and facts as is Apple who recently made a commitment to the workstation segment.

As for the “stuck in the late 90s or early 2000s”, that is absurd as general statements like this are like saying we are stuck in the early 1900s because we still use cars with wheels. We will use a new paradigm whenever it is available but there is no other way today to produce high end content, design or science as to use real workstations. If they look and feel retarded to you then you should enlighten Apple and the world with a new pattent.

“Commitment to the workstation segment”
Can you find someone who reported specifically on “workstation?” I haven’t looked hard as most just say “pro machine”. As a lot of Pro’s (by Apple’s own numbers) are using iMacs and MBR’s, “pro machine” does not exactly equate to “workstation”.

“there is no other way today to produce high end content, design or science as to use real workstations”
Yes, and very, very many of those workstations are Windows and Linux based. None of them are macOS based. The paradigm exists, it’s just not a macOS paradigm.

To say the pro market is small at Apple completely misses the reason WHY it is relatively small – because they not only forward innovated in all the wrong-headed, unwanted & foolish directions on vanity design shoved down our throats, they in fact took a giant step backwards instead and they have only disenfranchised those who would have GROWN the pro market in the last 4 years under wiser leadership.

A truly well run company looks at ways to grow all their markets (including those they started with which are of the most foundational importance!) and Apple’s attitude up ’til now has been clear. They would rather go after the low hanging fruit and be distracted by that than put in some harder work growing and serving the Mac market as well.

What gains they have made are nothing compared to what might be accomplished with a little more interest, will and elbow grease on their part. Simply put Tim Cook and executives are not doing their jobs nor are they doing right by their stockholders (or Steve Jobs for that matter who famously said he would milk the Mac for all it’s worth and there’s plenty of milk left for now and into the future for those smart enough to see it) maximizing every device market they are in.

Bringing back Xserves, a powerful Mac Mini, a properly designed Mac Pro in several configurations that will tailor to everyone’s needs, the iMac Pro that’s coming and a powerful Mac Book Pro in 15″ and 17″ configurations (with PLENTY of RAM) would go a long way to bring back interest to the Mac.

But as some have suggested here they can no longer flake on the Mac or misread what is required of them or innovate themselves into corners because they didn’t think things through or get advice and suggestions from those in their intended markets. That way lies irrelevance, lack of confidence and distrust.

Seriously this Mac Pro debacle was so egregious SOMEONE’S head should’ve rolled to show they are serious about correcting course. Of course Scott Forstall was scape-goated once for the Maps debacle and maybe that was the wrong guy sitting in the emergency ejection seat.

The reality remains the same. Mac has been milked dry, way past its expiration date. There is really no more milk in the Mac line. Its share of revenue is at this point a rounding error on Apple’s balance sheet.

Many of us have been busy with our work and haven’t notices how long ago Apple has clearly pivoted. Core Apple business is now mobile. Everything is centered around it; all other offerings, products and services exist in the furthering of the iOs and mobile devices. Macs primary justification is as the development platform for iOS. They seem to have only one full-time developer working on FCP X and one on Logic Pro X, and these two are probably also responsible for maintenance of iMovie and GarageBand. The whole Mac team is shrinking and the direction is quite clear.

I don’t know what I’ll do once Mac disappears from Apple’s product lineup. I just hope iOS becomes powerful enough that it can do what Mac used to do before it was discontinued…

Why the defeatist attitude???? You honestly think the Mac has no legs left? How dumb is that. Next are you going to propose that the most profitable auto brand, Porsche, should just stop making track focused sports cars because everyone knows that they are too low a volume sales market, and the future is all lazy automated refrigerators puttering around like little electronic bumper cars?

Sorry, I don’t believe your or the current Apple management have a clue how much money Apple is leaving on the table by refusing to listen to customers and deliver delightful fresh hardware to them with consistent innovation, year after year. Just like Porsche does…. very profitably.

macs make more than iPads and near twice Watch, AirPods, Beats, Tv, accessories COMBINED. it’s Apples second largest hardware money maker. If we follow your argument that Apple is ok neglecting it due to irrelevant sales, why proceed with iPad and the rest which make billions less? Mac by profit is near 100 on the Fortune 500 list. if they abandon such profitable business why do people suggest Apple buy Netflix etc which earn way way less?

Tim Cook has spent about 100 billion on share buybacks etc. to boost the stock. No. 1 concern of big investors is that they say Apple is a dangerous one product iPhone company. Surely diversity in high earning Macs is a great help in diversity?